Final Designation of the Highway Primary Freight Network |
|---|
|
Gregory G. Nadeau
Federal Highway Administration
October 23, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64477-64490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27036]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0050]
Final Designation of the Highway Primary Freight Network
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice publishes the final designation of the highway-
only Primary Freight Network (highway-only PFN). Section 167(d) of
title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.) requires the Secretary of
Transportation to establish the highway-only PFN and re-designate it
every 10 years, giving consideration to certain factors. This
designation meets the requirements of the law, but the Department and a
multitude of public comments recognize that the highway-only PFN fails
to demonstrate that freight moves through a complex and extensive
network of highways, railroads, waterways, pipelines, and airways.
While specific commodities are likely to be moved on a particular mode
or series of modes, a complex multimodal system is required to carry
the growing volume of bulk and high-velocity, high-value goods in the
United States. In addition, the 27,000-mile cap required by the law
does not yield a PFN representative of all the critical highway
elements of the United States freight system. While the Department is
designating the highway-only PFN to meet the statutory requirements of
the authorizing law, the Department is concurrently and simultaneously
proposing a comprehensive Multimodal Freight Network for public comment
in the draft National Freight Strategic Plan to identify key
infrastructure for all modes that is critical for the efficient
movement of freight.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this program,
contact Coral Torres, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations,
(202) 366-7602, or by email at Coral.Torres@dot.gov. For legal
questions, please contact William Winne, FHWA Office of the Chief
Counsel, (202) 366-1397, or by email at William.Winne@dot.gov. Business
hours for the FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST/EDT, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may retrieve a copy of the notice through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is
available 24 hours each day, every day of the year. Electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the
help section of the Web site. You may also download an electronic copy
of this document from Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Printing
Office's Web page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
Section 167(c) of title 23, U.S.C., directs the Secretary to
establish a National Freight Network (NFN) to assist States in
strategically directing resources toward improved system performance
for efficient movement of freight on the highway portion of the
Nation's freight transportation system, including the National Highway
System (NHS), freight intermodal connectors, and aerotropolis
transportation systems.
Under 23 U.S.C. 167(c), the NFN will consist of three components:
The highway-only PFN, the portions of the Interstate System not
designated as part of the highway-only PFN, and Critical Rural Freight
Corridors (CRFC), which are designated by the States.
[[Page 64478]]
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
limited the highway-only PFN to not more than 27,000 centerline miles
of existing roadways that are most critical to the movement of freight.
In addition, MAP-21 allowed an additional 3,000 centerline miles (that
may include existing or planned roads) critical to the future efficient
movement of goods on the highway-only PFN. The MAP-21 instructed DOT to
base the highway-only PFN on an inventory of national freight volumes
conducted by the FHWA Administrator, in consultation with stakeholders,
including system users, transport providers, and States. The MAP-21
defined eight factors to consider in designating the highway-only PFN.
The eight factors are:
1. Origins and destinations of freight movement in the United
States;
2. Total freight tonnage and value of freight moved by highways;
3. Percentage of annual average daily truck traffic in the annual
average daily traffic on principal arterials;
4. Annual average daily truck traffic on principal arterials;
5. Land and maritime ports of entry;
6. Access to energy exploration, development, installation, or
production areas;
7. Population centers; and
8. Network connectivity.
Section 167(d)(3) of title 23, U.S.C., mandates that the Secretary
shall re-designate the highway-only PFN every 10 years. The highway-
only PFN announced by this notice is the first iteration of the
network.
Multimodal Freight Network
Freight in America travels over an extensive network of highways,
railroads, waterways, pipelines, and airways: 985,000 miles of Federal-
aid highways; 141,000 miles of railroads; 28,000 miles waterways; and
more than 2.6 million miles of pipelines. There are over 13,000
airports in the United States, with approximately 500 serving
commercial operations, and over 5,000 coastal, Great Lakes, and inland
waterway facilities moving cargo. While specific commodities are likely
to be moved on a particular mode or series of modes, a complex
multimodal system is required to carry the growing volume of bulk and
high-velocity, high-value goods in the United States. For freight
shipments moving more than 750 miles (the distance beyond which the
benefits of multimodal shipping are more pronounced), 35 percent of
U.S. freight by value (including air freight and mails) moves on
multiple freight modes. And while 70 percent of freight by weight and
64 percent by value is moved by truck, the goods moved may be processed
foods, manufactured goods or other finished products that were carried
on other modes or include raw materials that traveled by other modes
during an earlier stage of production.
Public comments on the draft highway-only PFN requested
consideration of a network that was reflective of the Nation's entire
multimodal freight system. While the DOT recognizes that freight is
moved through the country by a complex multimodal system, MAP-21
mandated that the highway-only PFN consist solely of ``existing
roadways that are most critical to the movement of freight.'' (23
U.S.C. 167(d)(1)(A)(ii)) As a result, the final highway-only PFN
announced by this notice does not identify or prioritize other modal
aspects of the U.S. freight system.
In recognition of the public comments indicating the need for a
multimodal NFN that reflects the key components of each transportation
mode in the nation's freight system, DOT is concurrently and
simultaneously proposing a comprehensive Multimodal Freight Network
(MFN) as part of the release of the National Freight Strategic Plan.
The Department engaged all DOT modes with freight relevance (Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Maritime
Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
and the Federal Aviation Administration) in building an MFN to identify
key infrastructure for all modes that are critical for freight
movement.
As part of this multimodal effort, DOT considered the feedback
provided on the designation of the highway-only PFN (described below in
this notice) and built a multimodal network using revised thresholds
and a modified set of criteria, without the constraints of a mileage
cap. This MFN was designed to satisfy the National Freight Policy goals
and objectives at a multimodal level. The DOT will seek additional
feedback from public and private transportation stakeholders in order
to better identify what the goals, objectives and future use of this
MFN will be at the regional, State, and local levels. The Department
will also work with stakeholders to identify critical urban and rural
connectors and corridors.
The GROW AMERICA Proposal
In the Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated
Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities
throughout America Act (GROW AMERICA), the Administration proposed to
improve national freight policy to give it a multimodal focus. To this
end, the GROW AMERICA would streamline existing law by eliminating the
highway-only PFN and CRFCs and establish a multimodal NFN to inform
public and private planning, to prioritize Federal investment, aid the
public and private sector in strategically directing resources, and
support Federal decisionmaking. This network would consist of
connectors, corridors and facilities in all transportation modes most
critical to the current and future movement of freight in the national
freight system. The proposal would ensure a more accurate and relevant
network by shortening the period of re-designation to a 5-year cycle
and would require consideration of public input, including that from
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and States on critical
freight facilities that are vital links in national or regionally
significant goods movement and supply chains.
Purpose of the Notice
The purpose of this notice is to publish the final designation of
the highway-only PFN as required by 23 U.S.C. 167(d), provide
information about the methodology and data used in the designation, and
provide an analysis of the comments received on the draft designation
of this network.
Final Designation of the Primary Freight Network
With this notice, the FHWA Administrator, based on the delegation
of authority by the Secretary, officially designates the final highway-
only PFN. This final designation includes the same routes identified in
the draft highway-only PFN, previously released on November 19, 2013
(78 FR 69520). Links illustrating the 26,966 miles on the highway-only
PFN are available on the Web site maintained by FHWA (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/pfn/index.htm). The DOT
provides this final highway-only PFN to comply with the requirements of
23 U.S.C. 167. However, due to the challenges experienced in developing
a network that would adhere to MAP-21 requirements and convey the full
nature of the Nation's freight system, the Department recommends
consideration of an alternative multimodal network using a revised
methodology that includes criteria supported by the public comments on
the designation of the highway-only PFN, such as the one proposed in
GROW AMERICA or provided for public comment in the draft National
Freight Strategic Plan.
[[Page 64479]]
Analyses of Comments on the Draft Designation of the Highway-Only PFN
and NFN
On November 19, 2013, FHWA published the draft designation of the
27,000-mile highway-only PFN in the Federal Register at 78 FR 69520.
The initial notice also provided a larger network of routes (a 41,518-
mile comprehensive highway-only PFN) for consideration and information
regarding State designation of the CRFCs and the establishment of the
complete NFN. The FHWA asked stakeholders to review the draft highway-
only PFN and provide feedback.
Stakeholders requested additional time to analyze the draft
highway-only PFN methodology, maps, and the highway-only PFN's
potential impact on their communities. In response to these requests,
FHWA twice extended the public comment period. The comment period
closed on February 15, 2014, at which point the docket recorded a total
of 307 responses, including over 1,200 discrete comments. The following
section presents a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the trends,
themes, and patterns identified in the public comments.
Comments by Organization Type
The initial highway-only PFN notice generated comments from a range
of stakeholders in the private and public sectors. The following table
identifies the number and percentage of comments received by
organization type. The majority of comments came from MPOs, local
government agencies, and State DOTs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Public or private stakeholders Organization type comment Percentage of
entries comments \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private....................................... Business........................ 22 7.2
Industry Association............ 21 6.8
Private Citizen................. 21 6.8
Public/Private................................ Port............................ 12 3.9
Other........................... 33 10.7
Public........................................ State DOT....................... 51 16.6
Federal Agency.................. 2 0.7
Foreign......................... 1 0.3
Local Government Agency......... 64 20.8
Metropolitan Planning 68 22.1
Organization.
Other State Agency.............. 5 1.6
Regional Commission............. 2 0.7
Congress........................ 5 1.6
-------------------------------
Total..................................... ................................ 307 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments by Subject Area
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Due to rounding, figures do not add to 100 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA asked stakeholders to review the draft highway-only PFN
and provide feedback on five topics:
1. Specific route deletions, additions or modifications to the
draft designation of the highway-only PFN as outlined in the notice;
2. The methodology for achieving a 27,000-mile final designation;
3. How the NFN and its components could be used by freight
stakeholders in the future;
4. How the NFN may fit into a multimodal National Freight System;
and
5. Suggestions for an urban-area route designation process.
Most responses addressed two or more of the five topics, with 33
percent focusing on the methodology and 21 percent commenting on route
deletions, additions, or modifications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Type of comment Number of total comments
comments \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Specific route deletions, additions 267 21.2
or modifications.......................
2. Methodology for a 27,000 mile 419 33.3
designation............................
3. NFN use by freight stakeholders in 105 8.4
the future.............................
4. NFN and a multimodal National Freight 135 10.7
System.................................
5. Suggestions for an urban route 174 13.8
designation process....................
6. Funding Issues....................... 108 8.6
7. Request for Comment Extension........ 6 0.1
8. Other................................ 43 3.4
-------------------------------
Total Comments...................... 1,257 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Due to rounding, figures do not add to 100 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific Route Additions, Deletions or Modifications
The highway-only PFN Web site provides information on the requested
additions, deletions and modifications to the highway-only PFN as well
as a map reflecting these routes and segments, which totaled
approximately 8,400 additional or modified miles and 230 miles proposed
for deletion. This information can be found in the following Web site:
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/pfn/index.htm.
Additions
The majority of comments related to route changes suggested that
FHWA consider the addition of specific road
[[Page 64480]]
segments and facilities. However, in some cases, respondents requested
that entire State and Interstate highways be included. The comments
requesting that routes be added to the highway-only PFN most often
cited one of the following reasons:
1. Incorporating roads necessary for improving current freight
movements;
2. Incorporating roads necessary for planning future commodity
growth on the segment;
3. Affirming local freight planning efforts that identified the
segment and/or facility as a major critical freight route or generator;
4. Incorporating roads necessary to close gaps and connect one
facility, city, region, or State to another;
5. Incorporating roads necessary for resolving omissions of key
segments and facilities such as those with major significance to
national security and/or goods movement. Examples include: military
facilities, airports, ports, bridges, rail yards and intermodal
connectors;
6. Including the ``first'' and ``last'' mile of freight movements
on routes designated in the draft highway-only PFN;
7. Incorporating a route or facility related to an international
trade corridor;
8. Incorporating roads based on traffic counts and truck data
indicating the segment is a critical link in the area's freight
network;
9. Incorporating roads identified in the past by FHWA as a
``Corridor of the Future'' or that may become critical to the future
movement of freight; and/or,
10. Including new, planned roads that, when constructed, will--
[cir] Provide continuity in the freight network;
[cir] Provide a connection to population centers;
[cir] Provide connectivity to intermodal facilities;
[cir] Relieve congestion on existing Interstates; and
[cir] Provide benefits to national commerce as a route in a long-
distance trucking corridor.
Deletions and Modifications
Some respondents submitted requests for deletions and/or
modifications to the highway-only PFN. The reasons offered for these
requests included the following:
1. A desire to emphasize a different or more logical route than
that included in the highway-only PFN (respondents often expressed that
their agencies conducted evaluations using a different methodology or
criteria that yielded other routes as more freight-relevant than the
ones proposed in the draft highway-only PFN);
2. A desire to discourage non-local truck traffic through an area
such as a neighborhood, commercial district, or downtown; requests to
remove local streets not connected to freight facilities; and
3. Erroneous or outdated facility names.
The FHWA appreciates the comments requesting additions, deletions,
or modifications to the draft highway-only PFN. In analyzing the route-
related comments, FHWA determined that the level of information or data
solicited in the draft highway-only PFN designation and provided
through comments did not provide the specificity necessary to make
accurate or consistent modifications to the network. For example, in
order to change a route designation it is important to have mile marker
identification of segments and common data years (in the case of data-
driven segments). Although some respondents provided information such
as beginning and end points or name of a route or facility (such as a
specific intermodal connector), their requests to add, delete, or
modify the designation of the routes and facilities did not comply with
the criteria and threshold used for the draft designation, or different
data sources were used as a justification.
Despite the lack of specificity in the data provided by commenters,
many additions and modifications reflected some aspect that FHWA
considers relevant for the efficiency, reliability, safety, and
sustainability of the freight system and may have been incorporated
into the highway-only PFN if not for the current mileage cap imposed by
the law. Therefore, although no route modifications were made for the
final designation of the highway-only PFN, FHWA considered these
requests in its development of an alternative multimodal freight
network, which is discussed in further detail in the National Freight
Strategic Plan as displayed here: http://www.transportation.gov/policy/freight/NFSP.
Methodology for Achieving a 27,000-Mile Designation
Approximately 420 comments addressed the methodology for achieving
a 27,000-mile designation. The commenters expressed concern regarding
the complexity of the process for developing a highway-only PFN that
incorporates the criteria identified in MAP-21 and appreciated the
challenge of adhering to only 27,000 centerline miles of roads. Other
comments were critical of the criteria, concept, and data used for the
designation. The following subsections summarize comments on the
methodology.
Limitations of the 27,000 Centerline Miles Threshold
Comments regarding the highway-only PFN's centerline mileage
threshold expressed concern that combining multiple network criteria
with a mileage cap does not yield a highway-only PFN representative of
the most critical highway elements of the United States freight system.
Virtually all respondents preferred the sample 41,518-mile
``comprehensive'' (yet highway-only) network offered by DOT for
comparison. Some respondents recommended that DOT work with Congress to
develop statutory language to designate a more comprehensive and
connected highway freight network that links directly to other freight
modes. These commenters asked that Congress either (1) eliminate or
raise the mileage threshold, or (2) use a corridor basis instead of the
statutorily required centerline roadway mile basis. Some respondents
sought a connected 27,000-mile network of key freight routes but did
not provide a specific set of criteria. Others proposed that the
highway-only PFN incorporate the entire Interstate System in a non-
statutory designation. Respondents also noted that the comprehensive
network (e.g., the 41,518-mile network) included many of the highway
freight routes necessary to ensure sufficient connections to Land Ports
of Entry (LPOE) to Mexico and Canada and maritime ports of entry in
coastal states that are important for the Nation's global
competitiveness.
Section 167 of title 23, U.S.C., specifies that the highway-only
PFN designation cannot exceed a cap of 27,000 centerline roadway miles.
Therefore, in order to comply with Federal law, the final highway-only
PFN designation comprises no more than 27,000 centerline miles (and
includes the LPOEs for the most freight-active border crossings by
truck volumes).
Highway-Only PFN Criteria and Designation Methodology
This subsection discusses the comments on the statutory criteria
and the methodology developed by FHWA for the highway-only PFN
designation process. Some respondents proposed reconfiguring the
highway-only PFN to connect significant freight origins and
destinations for agriculture, energy production, manufacturing, mining,
and national defense to other key infrastructure such as the Interstate
system, ports of entry, and intermodal connectors. Some respondents
expressed concern that agriculture was
[[Page 64481]]
not listed as a specific factor for consideration. They felt that the
factor pertaining to the value of goods failed to give sufficient
weight to the movement of agricultural products. These respondents
commented that the NFN should directly address the importance of
agriculture to the U.S. and, without this focus; the resulting network
would be flawed. They suggested the use of criteria to better reflect
the movement of agricultural products by truck from field to market,
directly or by railheads, rather than measuring the movement of
imported goods. These commenters cited domestic agricultural
commodities as being vital to the U.S. economy and the health and well-
being of the U.S. population and stated that agricultural goods are
among the most significant generators of truck-freight in several
States. Some of these respondents commented that identifying routes in
the NFN can enhance energy, agricultural, and natural resource freight
movement and provide new opportunities for economic development.
In response, FHWA acknowledges that to better represent the
movement of agricultural products on the freight system, it would be
necessary to consider the data and the road-, rail-, air- and water-
based routes of a multimodal freight system. National data shows
agricultural products as being some of the top commodities under
current models and forecasted trends. The current highway-only PFN
methodology does not prioritize for type of commodity and was intended
to be supplemented by CRFCs that could include routes serving key
agricultural facilities. The FHWA believes a multimodal freight network
map would more accurately depict the movement of agricultural
commodities, which move by truck, rail, or barge, or combinations of
these methods.
Respondents also expressed concern for the lack of sensitivity in
the model to routes seasonal fluctuations and spikes in volumes that
have low annual averages, such as agricultural or forest products
routes and energy development, production, and extraction areas. They
felt that the freight mileage on these routes does not meet the
highway-only PFN threshold yet still accommodates a degree of truck
traffic relevant for inclusion in the network. Some comments proposed a
separate prioritization process for seasonally critical agricultural
corridors beyond the CRFCs designation established in MAP-21 and a
shorter re-designation cycle of the NFN and highway-only PFN to better
capture these trends.
In response, FHWA acknowledges that additional research, data and
refinements to the model could be developed to capture freight surges.
The FHWA will consider opportunities for incorporating seasonality or
surges into future network development.
Respondents also suggested modifications to the methodology and
different thresholds for the criteria. Some noted that the initial step
of the methodology should be changed to identify critical freight
nodes. In this alternative methodology, the highway-only PFN would
represent roadways that support certain critical freight nodes rather
than a subset that carry the most freight (the format for the current
methodology). The alternative methodology would then use additional
analysis to define the subset of roadways most critical to serve these
nodes. Respondents noted that by focusing on identifying critical
roadways closest to freight nodes, this methodology would better assist
States in strategically directing resources toward improved system
performance for efficient movement of freight on the highway portion of
the Nation's freight transportation system.
In response, FHWA notes that it explored the development of a
highway-only PFN that started with critical freight nodes
(predominantly urban areas and freight-intensive border crossings) and
built out from these points. After analyzing the data and simulating
the network, the Department selected a hybrid approach that used origin
and destination data from the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) and
cross-referenced it with these nodes using Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (AADTT) as a guide for how freight moves, by both tonnage and
value, between nodes. There are many ways to develop the highway-only
PFN, and that is in part why the FHWA sought public comment on the
methodology. The FHWA felt that a node-based map would require leaving
routes within a node undesignated, as FHWA lacked data specificity for
these routes. As a result, use of a node-based map would require an
additional step and time to obtain public input or to develop better
data.
The comments noted that while the methodology itemized several
factors considered for the draft network, it appears the base was drawn
using AADTT and then adding or subtracting to accommodate each of the
other factors. Respondents believed this may give undue weight to
densely populated regions with the associated large regional
distribution movements. Respondents also noted that this led to
illogical results that appear to be related to data discrepancies
between States.
Comments also addressed thresholds for the criteria used for
designation. Several comments flagged the limits for AADTT and
population used in the designation process as being too high. In
particular, comments noted that the AADTT threshold of 8,500 trucks to
identify roadway segments was set too high and precluded the
establishment of a rational and connected national network, which they
argued was the fundamental task of the national designation.
Respondents advocated for a percent of trucks in the AADTT and a 1,500
AADTT threshold for the highway-only PFN. The commenters felt that
these changes could provide a more useful picture of the freight
economic corridors the Nation relies on to support interstate and
international commerce.
Respondents also noted that the functional classification of
roadways should be changed to include collectors and above, and to
consider the allowance of lower vehicle classifications of truck
traffic. Others argued that the percentage of trucks should not be the
deciding factor but rather one of many factors considered for highway-
only PFN designation, including connectivity to and between freight
facilities. Finally, respondents believed the 25 percent AADTT
requirement proposed for designating a CRFC corridor would be too
restrictive for identifying urban area routes; they proposed using a
separate data threshold for urban area freight corridor designation.
In response, FHWA acknowledges that AADTT levels had a fundamental
role in the highway-only PFN designation process. The FHWA selected the
AADTT and percent of truck traffic thresholds to meet the 27,000-mile
limitation set in statute. The CRFC threshold of 25 percent truck
traffic was set by statute in MAP-21. When identifying data from
certain roadway classification and truck types, the FHWA focused on
aspects of freight that would be most relevant to national goods
movement, while also limiting the scope of the highway-only PFN to meet
the mileage threshold.
Respondents expressed that to develop the highway-only PFN
effectively, FHWA must provide a stronger consultative role for State
DOTs to identify the critical individual State components of the
highway-only PFN. They felt that FHWA should build as much flexibility
into the designation process as possible, especially by providing the
States with an
[[Page 64482]]
opportunity to identify an alternative network of freight highway
routes or corridors. Further, the States were thought to be in the best
position to regularly review the designated network for updates and
revisions.
In response, FHWA agrees that involvement of State DOTs, MPOs,
local agencies, and the private sector is key to developing a national
or primary freight network. The FHWA also recognizes the need to have
national consistency in the approach and scale of facilities included
on a freight network. The FHWA encourages States to use State Freight
Plans and to consult with State Freight Advisory Committees to identify
facilities most critical to freight movement in each State.
A few comments recommended using the United States Census
definition for urban areas instead of those with a population of
200,000 or more. In the Census definition, urbanized areas consist of
territory that contains 50,000 or more people. Respondents criticized
FHWA's use of the higher population threshold to meet the ``arbitrary''
limit of 27,000 centerline miles. Respondents noted that significant
national and international trade flows to and from mid-size communities
across the country are missed at the 200,000 population level.
In response, FHWA recognizes that the approach employed for
connecting population areas of 200,000 or greater risks bypassing areas
of important freight activity. However, FHWA encountered difficulty
keeping the highway-only PFN to under 27,000 centerline roadway miles
under scenarios that included all population centers of 50,000 or more
people.
Furthermore, the lack of a stated application for the highway-only
PFN and NFN introduced uncertainty into the designation process.
Without a better understanding of the goals for the highway-only PFN,
it was challenging to weight the factors for designation and to gauge
which resulting network would best meet freight planning and investment
needs. Each individual criterion yields different network coverage when
compared to the other factors. The FHWA undertook an extensive research
effort to fully understand the challenges of the proposed criteria and
to develop a methodology that would generate the most comprehensive
network. This resulted in dozens of scenarios that did not satisfy the
mileage cap or the inclusion of all of the statutory criteria. The
aggregation of these factors results in a map that is difficult to
limit to 27,000 miles without some significant prioritization of the
factors and their thresholds. Further, FHWA acknowledges that the
27,000-mile highway-only PFN does not meet the statutory criterion for
network connectivity. To fix these problems, the alternative
methodology applied by FHWA during the highway-only PFN development
resulted in the second, comprehensive map that exceeded the statutory
cap but is inclusive of all the criteria suggested in MAP-21 and
reaches more population centers.
Centerline Versus Corridor Approach
The majority of respondents expressed concern regarding the
fragmented nature of the highway-only PFN. While it was widely
understood that the non-contiguous highway-only PFN resulted from a
need to meet competing statutory factors under a mileage threshold,
respondents recommended that FHWA designate a continuous and linked
multistate network of transportation infrastructure that provides a
high level of support for international, national, and State economies.
Some suggested the highway-only PFN use a corridor approach instead of
the statutory requirement for measuring centerline roadway miles.
Respondents agreed with FHWA's suggestion that corridor-level analysis
and investment has the potential for widespread freight benefits and
can improve the performance and efficiency of the highway-only PFN.
These respondents provided suggestions for a more comprehensive
corridor-based approach to the highway-only PFN to designate multiple
parallel routes in each region that provide a high level of support for
international, national, and State economies and connect regional
population and economic centers. Comments noted that the use of
corridor miles rather than centerline miles would allow greater
flexibility for States and local jurisdictions for funding
opportunities and in applying future performance measures, not only to
a single identified route but also to important intermodal and urban
connectors as well as nearby parallel routes for use in freight-related
congestion mitigation. In addition, commenters noted that these
corridor designations will better correspond to a truly multimodal
freight network to avoid or allow (as needed) route redundancies
between all surface modes.
In response, FHWA agrees that a corridor approach for a highway
network allows for coverage of multiple routes as well as freight
facilities that satisfy the criteria in MAP-21. However, such an
approach will not meet the centerline highway miles requirement of MAP-
21. Also, because MAP-21 directed the Secretary to create a highway-
only PFN, the lack of consideration of water freight and rail freight
movements yields an incomplete representation of the nation's freight
corridors.
Data Limitations and Accuracy
The majority of comments that discussed the sources and limitations
of data agreed that the national data sets utilized in the development
of the draft highway-only PFN were insufficient to understand fully the
behavior of freight at the regional and local levels. Respondents
mentioned that the data used to develop the highway-only PFN do not
accurately reflect freight movements at the State, regional, and local
level and that the designation of this network relies on outdated
information. Points raised included concerns that existing sources of
data are fragmented, incomplete, and often not useful in supporting
transportation operations, policy, and investment decisions. For
example, one State noted that the Functional Classification Evaluations
in their State had not been updated for over 20 years.
Respondents also expressed a view that the quality of the Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data, which were used to identify
AADTT, varies greatly from State to State and depends upon the quantity
and location of counts, the age and frequency of counts, and the upkeep
of counting equipment. Respondents also felt that the highway-only PFN
methodology did not take into account more complete and accurate data
available from States, MPOs, and other local stakeholders. Comments
suggested that FHWA coordinate with the States and their planning
partners to ensure the currency and validity of the data sources that
support the analyses conducted over the course of MAP-21 policy
development and implementation. Respondents suggested that the next
reauthorization fund a comprehensive data program that enables DOT,
States, and MPOs to undertake the freight analysis and planning called
for in MAP-21 at the national, State, and regional levels. Comments
indicated that such a program should include safety data. Because
significant freight facilities for energy transport appear in more
remote areas and in outlying urban areas, respondents noted that data
should capture information in rural and smaller outlying urban areas,
as well as major metropolitan centers.
Comments noted that access to private sector data is needed as well
as other
[[Page 64483]]
proprietary sources of real-time data. Respondents noted that such data
can be used to map the most critical first- and last-mile segments,
including rural areas. Comments also recommended giving DOTs and MPOs
access to reliable and inexpensive data to conduct sound planning.
In response, FHWA notes that goods movement occurs in a very fluid
environment. During the development of the draft highway-only PFN, and
as an internal reference point of comparison to an earlier mapping
effort, FHWA took the major freight corridors map that was originally
developed for Freight Story 2008 and ran an analysis in the spring of
2013 to see how that map would look using current data. The Freight
Story 2008 map contained 27,500 miles: 26,000 miles based on truck data
and parallel intermodal rail lines and 1,500 miles representing goods
movement on parallel major bulk rail lines or waterways. Using the same
methodology with 2011 HPMS and rail data, data revealed that the
mileage based solely on the truck and intermodal rail activity had
grown to over 31,000 miles of roads since 2008, not including
consideration of growth in other freight modes on parallel major bulk
rail lines or waterways.
The FHWA recognizes that the data utilized for the development of
the final highway-only PFN comprises the best information available on
freight behavior at a national level. Nevertheless, national data is
not sufficient to understand fully the behavior of freight at the
regional and local levels. In particular, urban areas include a
freight-generating population and in most cases, are the site of
significant freight facilities where highway freight intersects with
other modes at rail yards, ports, and major airports. These ``first-
and last- mile'' connections, which also occur in rural areas, do not
always show up in data sets. In order to develop a network that
provides a better picture of freight in urban and rural areas,
additional data collection at State and local levels is needed to
improve the assessment of local and regional freight trends. This will
require coordination with stakeholders at a local, State, and regional
level. This data could provide a better understanding of seasonal and
regional trends around the country that national data sets often do not
capture.
The FHWA acknowledges a continuing national need for more robust
data collection methods. The FHWA also acknowledges that additional
coordination with MPOs and State DOTs is needed for future designation
of the highway-only PFN and any other freight networks to address some
of the data issues of the final highway-only PFN. As part of its
development of an MFN and for any future designation of the highway-
only PFN or other freight networks, DOT will seek additional
coordination with MPOs and State DOTs to address some of the outlying
issues remaining in this iteration of the network.
NFN Use by Freight Stakeholders in the Future
Because MAP-21 did not provide a specific purpose for the highway-
only PFN, it was challenging to establish thresholds in the methodology
and prioritize criteria to achieve the mileage limitation when it was
unclear how the highway-only PFN and the NFN would be utilized. To
better inform the process, FHWA sought comments on how the NFN and its
components could be used by freight stakeholders in the future. A
number of respondents echoed the concern that the future use of the NFN
and highway-only PFN could not be identified without understanding its
purpose and goals in relation to transportation policy and programs.
Respondents requested additional information from DOT and Congress,
with some recommending that the next transportation bill clearly
identify a policy and provide funding for NFN or highway-only PFN
facilities.
Many comments linked the highway-only PFN to funding, believing the
highway-only PFN would be eventually be used to prioritize funding for
projects. Some respondents proposed that Congress use this network for
strategic investment in freight on a national network of key freight
routes by specifically directing Federal highway funding through a
formula program apportioned to States. They felt it would be
appropriate for Congress to direct most of this funding to the NFN,
with the addition of urban routes. There was concern about using the
more limited highway-only PFN to allocate or apportion resources
without making adjustments to the methodology. Suggestions for
improving the map for directing investment included using the NFN,
which includes the Interstate System, and adding urban routes,
intermodal connectors, and last- and first-mile connectors.
Some respondents indicated funding should not be directed until the
designation is vetted by States and MPOs and that resources should not
be directed away from other highway programs to fund NFN-related
projects. Respondents also suggested that DOT work with Governors to
develop and evaluate funding options for a multimodal NFN that takes
into account States' transportation infrastructure assets and
limitations as detailed in State Freight Plans. The notice elicited
concerns relating to restrictions on the ability to shift
infrastructure funding to non-designated facilities and the potential
assessment of freight user fees.
Other commenters were concerned that the NFN or highway-only PFN
would be used in the future to impose restrictions on how the
designated infrastructure could be used or impose minimum investment
requirements. In addition, commenters raised concerns regarding the
ease and speed of the re-designation process. Commenters also cautioned
against using this network to direct the use of private property.
Respondents requested that these and other potential issues be given
consideration and that the government offer carefully structured and
definitive guidance. In the absence of such guidance, respondents
stated that they could not fully support the designation of any
infrastructure, public or private, as a part of the highway-only PFN.
Respondents viewed the NFN as a tool to facilitate a closer working
relationship between the government and private sectors who share an
interest in a fully-functioning freight system. Having State DOTs,
MPOs, trucking companies, the manufacturing and warehousing industries,
and other highway freight stakeholders participate in a closer working
relationship would be helpful to determine where limited highway
funding can best be invested and where it will have the greatest and
most widespread positive return on investment. Respondents supported
the use of the network to strategically direct resources to improve
system performance for efficient movement of freight on the highway
portion of the National Freight System. They projected that the most
important outcome would be the ability to identify and focus attention
on the highways and related projects that would target freight mobility
problems and lead to improved freight flow to maintain and enhance U.S.
economic activity.
Respondents mentioned that the NFN may be a useful resource or tool
in developing State Freight Networks and State Freight Plans.
Respondents felt that designation of a highway-only PFN could aid
States in such freight planning efforts as the designation of CRFCs,
the development and update of State Freight Plans, input to State
Freight Advisory Councils, and other planning activities. Respondents
recommend that FHWA give greater weight to factors that States suggest,
including consideration
[[Page 64484]]
of State Freight Plans that may already be developed.
Respondents commented that the highway-only PFN could provide the
locations to target for valuable data collecting efforts to measure the
fluidity of highway freight network. For example, the identification of
segments with the highest AADTT could provide the location of potential
capacity constraints and congestion issues.
In response, FHWA appreciates the concerns related to the lack of a
stated application for the highway-only PFN and NFN. Without a better
understanding of the goals for the highway-only PFN, the FHWA found it
challenging to weight the factors for designation relative to one
another and to gauge whether the resulting network would meet future
public planning and investment needs. Each individual criterion yields
different network coverage when compared to the simulations for the
other factors. The aggregation of all the suggested criteria resulted
in a map that was difficult to limit to 27,000 miles without some
significant prioritization of the many factors and application of
numerical thresholds in each measure.
The FHWA believes a multimodal NFN as described in the Department's
GROW AMERICA surface transportation proposal will have the ability to
inform public and private planning, to help prioritize for Federal
investment, to aid the public and private sector in strategically
directing resources, and to support Federal decisionmaking to achieve
the national freight policy goals.
NFN and Multimodal National Freight System
Respondents provided feedback on how the NFN fits into a larger
multimodal national freight system and how to define a multimodal
national freight system. Nearly 11 percent of the comments addressed
this topic. The majority of respondents on this topic acknowledged that
the highway-only PFN is a highway-only network and that the highway-
only PFN and NFN are therefore incomplete in their representation of
the multimodal system that is required to efficiently and effectively
move freight in the United States. The FHWA agrees with these comments.
Comments suggested the highway-only PFN be designated in a way that
would ensure future inclusion of the other freight modes that comprise
the Nation's freight and goods transportation system. Respondents also
voiced concern that the draft highway-only PFN did not include most of
the segments that make up the first and last mile of key freight
movements, which include local roads providing access to ports,
intermodal facilities, rail yards, and other freight facilities. FHWA
agrees with these comments.
Most respondents recognized these omissions were the result of the
mileage cap and recommended FHWA advocate for the elimination of the
mileage threshold. The FHWA agrees with these comments and has taken
action by addressing this in both the Department's GROW AMERICA surface
transportation proposal and the National Strategic Freight Plan.
Respondents believe that the highway NFN could be an important
modal component of a multimodal national freight system, but that the
NFN is not sufficient to describe the entirety of a system that moves
freight by a variety of modes. The FHWA agrees with these comments.
Some comments strongly encouraged DOT to focus the National Freight
Strategic Plan and other freight transportation work on the entire
multimodal freight system, and recommended that the final highway-only
PFN and NFN maps be overlaid with intermodal connectors, ports of
entry, marine highways (waterborne routes), important inland river
corridors and Class 1 rail lines to show a more comprehensive surface
transportation network critical to the movement of freight. The FHWA
agrees with these comments and has followed this recommendation.
Comments indicated the NFN should be combined with the other modes
of transportation to form a true multimodal system that operates
economically, efficiently, and harmoniously in the movement of freight
both nationally and internationally. Respondents suggested building
upon the FHWA's initial 41,518 centerline mile highway network as a
basis for ultimately developing a more comprehensive, multimodal
freight network. In addition, comments noted that FHWA and State DOTs
should compare the highway freight network map with strategic freight
railroad, waterway system, and aviation maps to locate connectivity
gaps. Commenters recommended that highway routes connecting to
intermodal facility locations be included in the NFN to ensure that the
network reflects a well-connected multimodal freight system. The FHWA
agrees with these comments and believes this is an activity that should
be undertaken by DOT in consultation with States and MPOs.
Many respondents supported the expansion of this network to a more
broadly defined multimodal network. They recommend that dedicated
funding be made available to support projects included in an approved
Regional Transportation Plan to enhance the performance and efficiency
of the highway-only PFN and NFN, as well as to mitigate adverse freight
movement impacts on surrounding communities and include eligibility for
highway-rail grade separations and other mitigation projects located
along nationally significant trade corridors.
In summary, FHWA agrees with the comments. In response to these
recommendations, FHWA is providing the final designation of the
highway-only PFN as required by MAP-21, while concurrently and
simultaneously releasing a MFN as part of the National Freight
Strategic Plan. The release of this Plan coincides with the issuance of
this notice, and the Department will seek public comment on its
proposed MFN.
Suggestions for an Urban-Area Route Designation Process
State DOTs and MPOs provided comments in partnership with freight
facility owners in support of a metropolitan area designation process
similar to the CRFC designation. The comments included suggestions for
methodologies and more precise data that could be used in the
identification of these critical urban freight routes. Almost 14
percent of total comments related to this topic.
Supporters felt this additional network modification is necessary
to improve the accuracy and utility of the highway-only PFN. These
commenters felt that the next reauthorization should make provisions
for designation of urban freight routes and connectors. It was noted
that metropolitan areas are the economic engines of the 21st Century
economy and that most of the population and most of the high-value and
high-tech manufacturing is in metropolitan areas. Comments also noted
that much of the cost of moving freight is the result of the congestion
encountered in urban areas.
Respondents envisioned that the FHWA would reach out to local
stakeholders to establish a formal urban-area route designation process
and methodology. They felt strongly that State DOTs and urban
representatives should be allowed to provide input on what factors
might drive urban designations within the highway-only PFN. Respondents
indicated they believe that State DOTs, MPOs, and other local agencies
have the knowledge and data to identify the critical urban-area freight
corridors and therefore these agencies should be responsible for
[[Page 64485]]
identifying the critical urban routes and submitting these to FHWA.
Some comments proposed that FHWA provide the framework and basic
guidelines for designation, but give States the ultimate responsibility
in establishing parameters and thresholds, in addition to identifying
the routes for inclusion in the network. The limits to be set by the
States and localities, as proposed by the commenters, would take into
consideration the freight demand relative to a State's population,
consumption and production, and commodity flows for designating both
rural and urban freight systems.
Respondents suggested the use of the following criteria for the
Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFC) designation: (1) High truck
volume corridors; (2) strategic military facilities; (3) connections to
major intermodal facilities; (4) significant freight intensive land
uses on manufacturing and warehouse industrial lands; (5) energy
exploration, development, installation, or production areas; (6) areas
of significant congestion and delay for trucks; (7) locations of at-
grade highway rail crossings; (8) number and severity of truck crashes;
(9) geometric deficiencies that inhibit safe or efficient truck
movement; (10) negative community/environmental impacts caused by truck
traffic; (11) motor carrier enforcement and safety efforts; (12)
availability of overnight or safe truck parking; (13) connections
between major points of entry or key trip generators and the highway-
only PFN (supported by locally derived data and analysis); (14)
connectivity with the other elements of the NFN; and (15) freight
value. Commenters did not support the inclusion of truck percent of
AADT because they felt that it had little relevance in urban areas.
Respondents expressed the view that both the national freight
strategy and the networks should include consideration for the urban
first and last miles needed to make a complete freight trip.
Others suggested that FHWA should not set the thresholds for truck
volume and percent for urban areas, but instead should require that
each State set the truck volume and/or truck percent thresholds for
their State. The commenters suggested that the context of percent truck
traffic and/or truck volumes varied significantly across the country
with regard to each State's consumption or production of goods and
services and as a result, the thresholds should not be standardized for
the Nation.
In addition, comments noted that States should be responsible for
working with State freight stakeholders as well as MPOs and Rural
Planning Organizations (RPO) in the designation of such systems within
their respective State and that States should coordinate with
neighboring States to ensure systems take into consideration multistate
freight flows. They also noted that as with the CRFC designation
process, this process should allow flexibility for States and metro
areas to determine the most strategic and important freight routes.
Respondents believed that engaging State DOTs and MPOs in proposing
urban-area freight routes would maximize the utility and relevance of
each agency's existing freight planning processes, plans, and study
initiatives. They felt that by elevating the responsibility of State
and local entities to identify criteria, set targets, and identify
CUFCs, freight planning would be in the forefront and freight plans
would be aligned with other transportation, economic development, and
environmental plans or programs.
In response, FHWA recognizes that many highway freight bottlenecks,
chokepoints and first and last mile connectors are located in both
rural and urban areas. This makes these areas critical to the
efficiency of domestic and international supply chains. Although
Federal law provided a mechanism to enable connectivity to critical
freight ``last mile'' origins and destinations in rural areas through
the designation of CRFC by the States, the language in 23 U.S.C. 167(d)
lacks a parallel process for designating critical urban freight routes
to address the need for connectivity to urban areas. Further, public
and private sector representatives are increasingly emphasizing the
significant role of cities and metropolitan areas in the safe and
efficient movement of freight.
Given the lack of precision of national data at the urban level,
FHWA believes there is merit in establishing a process for MPOs, RPOs,
and State DOTs to designate critical urban freight routes and critical
rural freight corridors that may have been missed when analyzing
national-level data but are nonetheless important for freight movement
to, from, and through an urban and rural areas. The FHWA recognizes
that cities are best positioned to understand the complexities of
freight movement in individual urban and rural areas, including current
freight movement patterns, and plans or projections for shifts in
freight movement within these areas, and could assist in the
identification of thresholds for use in the designation of CUFCs.
In response to these comments, FHWA has begun developing
preliminary concepts to aid in the designation of freight corridors
should they be included in future legislation. The Department has also
included language in GROW AMERICA surface transportation proposal that
incorporates additional criteria in a NFN designation that gives
consideration to bottlenecks and other impediments contributing to
significant measurable congestion and delay in freight movement,
facilities of future freight importance based on input from
stakeholders, and an analysis of projections for future growth and
changes to the freight system. In addition, the Department included
language that considers elements of the freight system identified and
documented by States and MPOs using national or local data as having
critical freight importance to the region as part of the NFN.
Funding Issues
Nearly 9 percent of total comments received mentioned funding. In
general, respondents believe that the value of the highway-only PFN is
limited without the provision of dedicated resources to address freight
needs. Some referenced the need for these funds to maintain and enhance
a multimodal national transportation system. Some commenters felt that
existing Federal funding should not be diverted to the NFN unless
current program funding levels could at least be maintained or
expanded. Comments also noted that State DOTs and MPOs cannot fully
comment on the impact of NFN designations without understanding the
potential funding implications, which are not addressed in MAP-21.
Further, they cautioned that the NFN should not be used to direct State
or Federal investment in freight transportation systems until the
network has been revised to reflect highways that serve continuous and
efficient freight flow.
The commenters also suggested that planning and policy work would
be of limited value if funds are not provided to realize the planning
vision. Comments noted the highway-only PFN and an expanded multimodal
national freight system could help make the case for a program that
leverages local, regional, and private funds to invest in critical
freight infrastructure needs.
Others respondents expressed concern about supporting a system that
lacks connectivity and does not accurately represent freight trends. As
previously discussed in this notice, some respondents recommended
refraining from using the NFN for directing State or Federal investment
in freight transportation systems. They noted that when the NFN has
been
[[Page 64486]]
restructured to reflect highways that serve continuous and efficient
freight flow and is supported by Federal funds accordingly, freight
stakeholders should be able to use this system as a benchmark around
which to center economic activity and investment. Others mentioned that
they will likely focus investment and other decisions on the strategic
freight network designated in their State freight plan rather than the
NFN. Comments noted that some jurisdictions have already designated a
strategic freight network of key corridors which connect additional
areas of the State and provide redundancy to Interstate corridors.
Most respondents expressed new funding should be prioritized to
support sustainable economic vitality and global competitiveness for
the U.S. Some respondents stated that this funding program should
support national freight movement through enhancing the NFN by funding
highway traffic count stations, truck weigh stations, truck rest area
facilities, state of good repair for freight-traveled pavement and
bridges, and operations management priorities such as congestion
management and travel time reliability. Respondents suggested that
funding could also be made available to support freight projects
included in an approved Regional Transportation Plan or Transportation
Improvement Program. In their view, these projects should be
prioritized on the basis of demonstrable contribution to the
performance and efficiency of the highway-only PFN and NFN, as well as
to mitigate adverse freight movement impacts on surrounding
communities.
Respondents also noted that although MAP-21 provides modest funding
for the Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS), they
felt that the PNRS program should be expanded to provide freight
funding using a more robust, multimodal PFN. They suggest an expanded
PNRS program should build on considerable past efforts, including the
freight corridor designations and funding program established under the
previous Federal transportation authorization, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU).
In response, FHWA recognizes the need for additional freight
investment in the U.S. That is why the GROW AMERICA proposes a six-
year, $9 billion multimodal freight incentive program and a 6-year, $9
billion national freight infrastructure program. Given the increased
emphasis on transportation performance management, FHWA believes it is
prudent not to limit funding to a specific facility on a network map
but to allow State and local governments, the private sector, and other
entities to determine the best solutions to improving the safety and
efficiency of the freight system through data and analysis in State
Freight Plans and with the active engagement of the State Freight
Advisory Committees.
Other Issues Raised in Comments
The sections below summarize comments received on other issues
raised in response to the solicitation of comments on the draft
highway-only PFN.
Primary Freight Network Update Cycle
Several comments raised concerns regarding the 10-year timeframe
for updating the highway-only PFN. Comments expressed that this length
of time does not reflect the changing nature of economic patterns and
goods movement. Comments noted there are constant changes in market
trends, population, infrastructure, technology, data, demographics,
globalization, and investment. Respondents believe that a 10- or 20-
year cycle will not allow policy makers and stakeholders to make
optimal use of time, resources, and funding. With the MPO planning
process based on a 4-year cycle, and freight and rail plans updated on
5-year cycles, respondents recommended FHWA pursue reducing the update
cycle to match other metropolitan transportation planning cycles or at
a minimum, provide an amendment process that enables States to request
and receive approval for highway-only PFN changes between 10-year
updates.
In response, FHWA agrees that the current 10-year update cycle is
not sufficient. The FHWA does not have statutory authority to change
the re-designation cycle but has proposed a 5-year update cycle in the
GROW AMERICA surface transportation proposal. The Department will also
be proposing a 5-year update cycle as part of the MFN in the National
Strategic Freight Plan.
Highway Safety Considerations
A small number of respondents raised the issue of highway safety
and the highway-only PFN. Stakeholders noted that safety issues and
performance measures should be considered in the establishment of the
NFN. These comments emphasize that safety data needs to be part of the
analysis and improving safety on our freight systems should be a goal
of any Federal action related to the establishment of a NFN. Comments
noted that factors should include freight moved by trucks, truck crash
rates, the underlying causes of highway deaths and injuries, and
infrastructure maintenance and vulnerabilities. Respondents noted that
the highway-only PFN should take into account these interactions and
impacts on the traveling public, especially if the highway-only PFN
designation will increase truck traffic on those roadways.
In response, safety is the top priority for DOT and is a main goal
of MAP-21's National Freight Policy. Although safety is not an express
goal or factor in the designation of the highway-only PFN, each State's
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) affords a comprehensive approach
and in-depth analysis for truck safety. The SHSPs are statewide,
coordinated safety plans that provide a framework for reducing highway
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. An SHSP identifies
a State's key safety needs and guides investment decisions toward
strategies and countermeasure with the most potential to save lives and
prevent injuries. States are required to develop, implement, evaluate,
and update an SHSP that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems
and opportunities on all public roads.
Section 1118(b)(3) of MAP-21 requires that State Freight Plans
include a description of how the plan will improve the ability of the
State to meet the national freight goals established under section 167
of title 23, U.S.C., which include safety, and consideration of
innovative technologies and operational strategies to improve the
safety of freight movement. Sections 1118(b)(5) and (6) of MAP-21 also
require consideration of routes projected to substantially deteriorate
due to heavy vehicles and of areas of reduced mobility such as
bottlenecks. The interim guidance for developing State Freight Plans
pursuant to MAP-21 includes numerous safety elements.
There are data sources available to help States and MPOs measure
these aspects of truck safety. The FHWA will work with our partners to
ensure truck safety is considered and analyzed as appropriate in the
SHSPs, as well as in State Freight Plans. The FHWA believes it is
important to identify critical infrastructure through a multimodal
freight network and to continue working with our partners and
stakeholders to encourage actions to improve truck safety for these
nationally significant areas and across the Nation's roadways.
Environmental and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Considerations
Respondents noted that the highway-only PFN designation does not
[[Page 64487]]
incorporate environmental considerations, including greenhouse gas
reduction and public health. More specifically, in the description of
the methods and data sources used, no data sources incorporating
environmental data were used. Comments noted this could be a critical
element that would validate the designations and ensure that limited
funding also provides environmental and public health benefits.
Comments noted that the network should directly establish environmental
and public health criteria (e.g., emission reduction benefits) that are
used in the designation process and later used in assessment of
projects receiving funding, priority, or other benefits. Comments also
noted that including environmental criteria provides additional
contextual data to the network for understanding implications of a
proposed project or identifying alternatives when viewed as a map
overlay or other analysis.
In response, FHWA acknowledges the importance of understanding and
mitigating the negative effects of freight on the environment and on
communities. Freight projects, like other transportation projects,
should consider and address environmental justice and access, air
quality, water quality, and noise pollution, for example. With respect
to mapping a freight network to reflect these aspects, however, the NFN
and highway-only PFN requirements do not include factors relating to
the environment or public health. The MAP-21 directed the Department to
designate ``not more than 27,000 centerline miles of existing roadway
that are most critical for the movement of freight'' in an NFN that is
focused on ``improved system performance for efficient movement of
freight.'' Further, national-level environmental data is limited in
being able to offer a comprehensive assessment of these issues. In
order to meet the various Federal requirements and advance human and
environmental protection, the FHWA believes it is important to first
identify the critical infrastructure in a multimodal freight network
and then work with our partners and stakeholders to protect the
environment and public health.
Designation of Private Roads and Rail Lines
Several respondents discussed the inclusion of private roads and
rail lines, with many calling for the incorporation of private rail
systems in a multimodal PFN. However, respondents representing
railroads expressed concern that there is no information as to how a
designation of a facility as part of the highway-only PFN will be used
in the future. As discussed more generally in the previous section on
``NFN Use by Freight Stakeholders in the Future,'' commenters urged DOT
to define the highway-only PFN's purpose before determining whether to
include private infrastructure on the highway-only PFN or the NFN.
Railroad stakeholders were concerned that Congress would establish
minimum investment requirements or restrict future uses of the rail
infrastructure. They questioned whether designation of private rail
facilities would have consequences for funding decisions for these
facilities, impact the ability to shift infrastructure funding to non-
designated facilities, or result in freight user fees.
In response, FHWA acknowledges there are potential challenges
related to designating private infrastructure as part of a highway-only
PFN or NFN. However, because the Nation's multimodal freight system is
comprised of both public and private infrastructure and the
interdependencies, redundancies, and efficiencies of this entire
network is relevant to understanding freight movement, it would be very
beneficial to national and regional planning to include both types in a
multimodal freight network. This is why we are concurrently and
simultaneously releasing the draft Nation Freight Strategic Plan. The
FHWA will continue to consider the implications of designating private
and non-Federal infrastructure as they relate to the goals, objectives,
and a future purpose of an MFN.
Intermodal Connectors
Some respondents supported incorporating all intermodal
connections, arguing that this was imperative in building a seamless
highway-only PFN. Respondents also highlighted the importance of having
an updated listing of NHS freight intermodal connectors on the highway-
only PFN map. Respondents recommended that intermodal connectors,
specifically if they are adjacent to a trade gateway, major industrial,
distribution and consumption area, seaport, river terminal or
designated freight corridor, be prioritized for inclusion in the final
highway-only PFN. Specific comments requested the inclusion of marine
highways and urban intermodal connectors. Respondents also supported
establishing a formal process for designating critical urban and rural
freight routes that include first and last miles and/or intermodal
connectors.
Comments touched on the need to include in the highway-only PFN
more than just the intermodal connectors occurring in population
centers of 200,000 or more. While the majority of commenters understood
why FHWA chose to use the metric of AADTT to identify which segments of
the NHS would appear on the highway-only PFN, there was confusion about
why AADTT was not also used to measure and select intermodal
connectors. Commenters were concerned with the fact that data sources
used to analyze the intermodal connectors are incomplete. The
respondents strongly recommended that FHWA consult with State DOTs,
which, by working with their regional and local partners could assist
the Federal Government in identifying routes that will ensure network
connectivity to nationally significant intermodal facilities.
In response, FHWA agrees that NHS intermodal connectors are vital
elements of the NFN. If the highway-only PFN was not mileage-
constrained at 27,000 miles, priority consideration would be given to
including all relevant urban and non-urban NHS freight intermodal
connectors (these are included in the 41,518 mile comprehensive
network). To adhere to the mileage cap, FHWA excluded those not meeting
the AADTT threshold from the highway-only PFN. Regarding data, FHWA's
listing of NHS intermodal connectors is current. However, FHWA does not
have comprehensive data on the conditions and performance of each NHS
intermodal connector. The FHWA supports efforts by infrastructure
owners to collect comprehensive data on these facilities and update it
on a frequent basis to help measure the performance of these
connectors. The FHWA is conducting a research study to assess the
conditions and performance of a representative sample of intermodal
connectors. This information will assist the agency, its partners, and
infrastructure owners in better assessing the current use of freight
intermodal connectors, freight connector condition and performance, and
in identifying connector impediments and solutions to allocate
resources for the efficient flow of goods.
Military Bases/Facilities
Respondents requested that FHWA add strategic military bases to the
origins and destinations of freight movements to be considered in the
highway-only PFN designation. Comments indicated this would help
provide for logistics that support a strong national defense.
Respondents sought inclusion of U.S. Military Power
[[Page 64488]]
Projection Platform locations, as well as seaports and airports,
because of their importance to national defense and their role as
centers of significant regional economic activity. Respondents
mentioned that the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps have a list of power
projection platforms, officially designated seaports of embarkation,
and aerial ports of embarkation, that should be considered for the
designation of these facilities. Respondents also noted that the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Maritime Administration have
designated certain commercial seaports as ``Strategic Ports'' as part
of the National Ports Readiness Network, because of the significant
role they play in supporting port readiness, emergency operations, and
cargo throughput capacity for global projection of our Armed Forces.
Respondents supported FHWA's focus on the efficiency of freight
movement in the highway-only PFN and believe that a benefit to freight
movement in general will be a benefit to DOD cargo movement.
In response, FHWA acknowledges the importance of a variety of modes
and types of facilities for the efficient movement of freight for the
U.S. Armed Forces. The FHWA believes there are various national highway
systems that have already been designated to meet the specific needs of
the military and transportation of equipment and supplies. These
systems include the U.S. Interstate Highway System, which was in part
based on roads necessary for national defense, and the Strategic
Highway Network (STRAHNET). The STRAHNET and the Strategic Rail
Corridor Network were established as critical to DOD domestic
operations, such as emergency mobilization and peacetime movement of
heavy armor, fuel, ammunition, repair parts, food, and other
commodities to support U.S. military operations. As a result, FHWA does
not think access to every military base or strategic port needs to be
part of the highway-only PFN. The DOT will consider how best to include
them on the MFN. The FHWA has identified a number of intermodal
connectors under the 41,000 comprehensive networks that connect to
military bases/facilities and will include these NHS freight intermodal
connectors in future designations of the highway-only PFN if the
mileage cap is increased. In addition, the entire mileage of the final
highway-only PFN is part of STRAHNET.
National Freight Advisory Committee (NFAC)
The Secretary of Transportation established the National Freight
Advisory Committee (NFAC) in 2013 to provide advice and recommendations
on matters related to freight transportation in the United States. This
Committee is composed of representatives from the public and private
sector, local and State governments, labor unions, safety
organizations, transportation organizations, freight shipping
companies, and other freight stakeholder organizations. The NFAC
undertook an extensive review of the draft designation of the highway-
only PFN and provided the comments and recommendations, which can be
found here: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/NFAC%20Joint%20Comment%20to%20Hwy%20PFN%20-Initial%20Comments%20Consolidated.pdf.
The NFAC stated that it did not endorse the proposed highway-only
PFN and directed its comments to both Congress and DOT. Its primary
concerns were related to the size and nature of the 27,000 centerline
miles limitation and the need for a multimodal freight network. The
NFAC felt the draft highway-only PFN lacked critical elements of first
and last mile connectors, especially in urban areas, as well as port
connectors and North American gateway connections. The Committee
preferred a hub- and corridor-based, multimodal approach for
designation and opposed the statutory imposition of a mileage
threshold. They urged DOT to proceed with a multimodal network,
engaging the public and including an urban designation process. They
supported the use of AADTT in a highway-only PFN. In the absence of a
revised highway-only PFN, they preferred that funding be prioritized to
solve truck congestion on existing freight corridors and gateways.
Regarding the lack of a stated purpose for the PFN, the NFAC felt
DOT should develop goals in coordination with a variety of public and
private sector stakeholders and use these goals to inform the
development of the Conditions and Performance Report and the National
Freight Strategic Plan. They felt that these goals must address the
intended use of the highway-only PFN, whether it should have a role in
prioritizing needs or justifying investment, and why it did not give
full consideration to first or last mile segments. According to the
NFAC, the lack of goals impedes the ability to have a national
investment strategy.
When highway-only PFN goals are established, the NFAC believes
flexible investment strategies should be afforded to the States and
private railroads should retain their autonomy to manage their
infrastructure. They called on Congress in the next reauthorization to
provide for a comprehensive data program and for access to private
sector data and other sources to support freight planning. They cited
the value of State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees
in informing national planning and sought to make these mandatory.
There was strong support for local and State leadership in designating
urban freight networks. They called on DOT to consider and incorporate
future trends in goods movement, and to re-designate or modify more
frequently than the 10-year cycle. The NFAC urged the creation of
dedicated funding from additional revenue sources to support both
planning and to incentivize investment in projects.
The NFAC further recommended that DOT consider where freight should
be encouraged to move as opposed to only reflecting current movements.
The Committee requested the location of structurally deficient bridges
or ``freight restricted bridges'' be considered for the highway-only
PFN. They also submitted the following list of routes they felt was
missing from the highway-only PFN:
Primary high-traffic connectors between freight terminals
and Interstate highways;
Intermodal connectors, connections to logistics centers
and manufacturing centers (freight origin and destination points);
Highway segments that provide unique through-routes for
53-foot national standard tractor-trailers;
Metropolitan components and urban connectors;
Critical highways based on where activity is happening,
not just those on the Interstate system (non-Interstate networks);
Farm-to-market routes;
Waterways;
International gateways such as highway border crossings,
airports, seaports, Great Lakes ports and river terminals that provide
significant freight movement; and
Interstate crossings connecting urban areas with national
manufacturers and distribution centers in different states.
Highway-Only PFN Data and Methodology
Section 167(c) of title 23, U.S.C., directed the Secretary to
establish a NFN to assist States in strategically directing resources
toward improved system performance for efficient movement of freight on
the highway portion of the Nation's freight
[[Page 64489]]
transportation system. Consistent with the national freight policy in
MAP-21, DOT's goal was to designate a highway-only PFN that would
improve system performance, maximize freight efficiency, and be
effectively integrated with the entire freight transportation system,
including non-highway modes of freight transport. The FHWA explored the
development of a NFN to provide connectivity between and throughout the
three elements that comprise the NFN (highway-only PFN, remainder of
the Interstate System, and CRFC).
Data Used for the Designation of the Highway-Only Primary Freight
Network
In undertaking the highway-only PFN designation, FHWA developed
multiple scenarios to identify a network that represents the most
critical highway portions of the United States freight system. The
highway-only PFN was informed by measurable and objective national
data. In performing the analysis that led to the development of the
highway-only PFN, FHWA considered the following criteria and data
sources, which are further described at the listed Web locations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Data source Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origins/ destinations of FAF 3.4 http:// Connect top origins/
freight. faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/ destinations.
Extraction0.aspx.
Freight tonnage and value by FAF 3.4 http:// Include top routes
highways. faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/ by weight of
Extraction0.aspx. freight
transported;
Include top routes
by value of
commodity
transported.
Percentage of AADTT on HPMS 2010 AADTT Include top routes
principal arterials. http:// by percentage of
www.fhwa.dot.gov/ AADTT on principal
policyinformation/ arterials.
hpms.cfm.
AADTT on principal arterials HPMS 2010 AADTT Include top routes
http:// by AADTT on
www.fhwa.dot.gov/ principal
policyinformation/ arterials.
hpms.cfm.
Land and maritime ports of USACE U.S. Army Connect top seaports
entry. Corps, Navigation and river terminals
Data Center, ranked by weight
special request, and values.
October 2012 via
BTS.
MARAD http:// Connect top seaports
www.marad.dot.gov/ and river terminals
documents/ ranked by number of
Container_by_US_Cus 20-foot equivalent
toms_Ports.xls. unit containers
(TEUs).
BTS Transborder data Connect top land
http://www.bts.gov/ ports for both
programs/ weight and values.
international/
transborder/
TBDR_QuickSearch.ht
ml.
Access to energy EIA (U.S. Energy Include access to
exploration, development, Information coal basins, top
installation or production Administration) coal mines, coalbed
areas. http://www.eia.gov/ methane fields,
pub/oil_gas/ natural gas
natural_gas/ production
analysis_publicatio locations, gas and
ns/maps/ oil exploration
maps.htm#geodata. areas.
Pennwell Mapsearch Include access to
data via Pipeline oil refineries and
and Hazardous distribution
Materials Safety centers.
Administration
(PHMSA) http://www.mapsearch.com.
Pennwell Mapsearch Include access to
data via Pipeline pipeline terminal
and Hazardous locations.
Materials Safety
Administration
(PHMSA) http://www.mapsearch.com.
Pennwell Mapsearch Include access to
data via Pipeline biodiesel and
and Hazardous ethanol plants.
Materials Safety
Administration
(PHMSA) http://www.mapsearch.com.
Population centers.......... 2010 Census http:// Connect top
www.census.gov/ urbanized areas;
cgibin/geo/ Utilize Census
shapefiles2010/main. Urbanized Area
Boundary for
geographic areas.
Network connectivity........ FAF 3.4 http:// Reduce gaps by
faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/ connecting highway-
Extraction0.aspx. only PFN segments
to each other or to
the Interstate
System, or begin/
end at access
point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology Used for the Designation of the Highway-Only Primary
Freight Network
The FHWA developed the following methodology with the intention of
generating a network that could include as many of the MAP-21 criteria
as practicable. The FHWA undertook extensive research and numerous
approaches to better understand and model the criteria. This research
informed our finding that compliance with the mileage cap yields a
network that does not sufficiently accommodate the full set of
criteria. In order to comply with the mileage cap while still
accommodating the statutory criteria, FHWA developed a methodology that
prioritized the application of the criteria and set thresholds within
the data sets. The FHWA used the following methodology to develop the
highway-only PFN:
(1) Used the FAF and HPMS data sets to generate the top 20,000
miles of road segments that qualified in at least two of the following
four factors: Value of freight moved by highway; tonnage of freight
moved by highway; AADTT on principal arterials; and percentage of AADTT
in the annual average daily traffic on principal arterials.
(2) Analyzed the segments identified in Step 1 and gaps between
segments for network connectivity. Created the network by connecting
segments if the gap between segments was equal to or less than 440
miles (440 miles being the distance a truck could reasonably travel in
1 day). Eliminated a segment if it was less than one-tenth of the
length of the nearest qualifying segment on the highway-only PFN.
(3) Identified land ports of entry with truck traffic higher than
75,000 trucks per year. Connected these land ports of entry to the
network created in Steps 1 and 2.
(4) Identified the NHS Freight Intermodal Connectors within urban
areas with a population of 200,000 or more.\3\ The NHS Freight
Intermodal Connectors included any connectors categorized as connecting
to a freight rail terminal, port, river terminal, or pipeline. In
addition, these NHS Freight Intermodal Connectors included routes to
the top 50 airports by landed weight of all cargo operations
(representing 89 percent of the landed weight of all cargo operations
in the U.S.). Connected the NHS Freight Intermodal Connectors back to
the network created in Steps 1 and 2 along the route with the highest
AADTT using HPMS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Census defined urban areas (UZAs) were used rather than
the adjusted UZAs since these were not available at the time of the
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Identified road segments within urban areas with a population
of
[[Page 64490]]
200,000 or more that have an AADTT of 8,500 trucks/day or more.\4\
Connected segments to the network established in Steps 1 and 2 if they
were equal to or greater than one-tenth of the length of the nearest
qualifying segment on the highway-only PFN. Removed segments not
meeting this rule as they were more likely to represent discrete local
truck movement unrelated to the national system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Analyzed the network to determine the relationship to
population centers, origins and destinations, ports, river terminals,
airports, and rail yards and added minor network connectivity
adjustments.
(7) Analyzed the road systems in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico
using HPMS data. These routes would not otherwise qualify under a
connected network model but play a critical role in the movement of
products from the agriculture and energy sectors, as well as
international import/export functions for their States and urban areas
and added roads connecting key seaports to population centers.
(8) Analyzed the network to determine the relationship to energy
exploration, development, installation, or production areas. Since the
data points for the energy sector are scattered around the United
States, often in rural areas, and because some of the related freight
may move by barge or other maritime vessel, rail, or even pipeline,
FHWA did not presume a truck freight correlation.
(9) Steps 1 through 8 resulted in a network of 41,518 centerline
miles, including 37,436 centerline miles of Interstate and 4,082
centerline miles of non-Interstate roads.\5\ In order to obtain the
27,000 centerline miles, FHWA identified those segments with the
highest AADTT. These road segments represented on the final highway-
only PFN map comprise 26,966 miles of centerline roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Readers should note the 2011 HPMS database and the current
FAF database differ in the delineation and exact geo-location of the
NHS system. This may result in plus/minus 1-2% variation on the
total mileage because the mileage is based on the geospatial network
and actual mileage reported by States may vary due to vertical and
horizontal curves that are not always accurate in GIS databases. The
DOT will look to integrate the 2011 HPMS database with the FAF
database to reduce variation in future iterations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Highway-Only Primary Freight Network Map
The FHWA has posted the details of the final initial highway-only
PFN, including the 26,966-mile highway-only PFN map, State maps, and
lists of designated routes and tables of mileage by State at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/nfn/index.htm.
This final highway-only PFN, which is unchanged from the draft
released in November 2013, attempts to reflect the many criteria
established in MAP-21 while also complying with the mileage cap. As a
result, the highway-only PFN results in an unconnected network with
major gaps in the system, including components of the global and
domestic supply chains. Therefore, DOT is concurrently and
simultaneously developing an MFN as part of the National Freight
Strategic Plan that better represents the complex multimodal freight
system in the U.S. and has proposed the GROW AMERICA legislation that
is responsive to the many public comments outlined in this notice.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 167; 49 CFR 1.85.
Issued on: October 15, 2015.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
FHWA Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-27036 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P